Changes

==History of Homoeopathy==

==History of Homoeopathy==

One can grant homoeopathy thoroughly "scientific" character at time of its development (according to definition at that time). After all, Hahnemann proceeded empirically and checked his thesis at experiments on himself. Nowadays the gain of knowledge since these time makes the theory only seem interesting from the medicine historical view. The homoeopathy cannot be regarded as a serious medical method due to the missing effectiveness proof. At Hahnemann's times neither a clinical thermometer was invented nor the knowledge of bacteria was acquired, instead the strangest attempts to explain arose (miasma for example, pathogenic steams which raise of the ground), so that one must quite regard Hahnemann's model from historical view as reasonable. From today's view after over two centuries of enormous knowledge gain one can suspect that even Hahnemann, he would still live and have today's knowledge, would mock his apologists. So the homoeopathy was already criticized intensely over 100 years ago (see links). The similarity principle of the homoeopathy does not go back on Hahnemann, there already were analogous conceivabilities (for example in England) before.

One can grant homoeopathy thoroughly "scientific" character at time of its development (according to definition at that time). After all, Hahnemann proceeded empirically and checked his thesis at experiments on himself. Due to the increase in knowledge occured since, this theory appears interesting merely from a medico-historical point of view. Due to the lack of evidence of efficacy, homoeopathy cannot be regarded as a serious medical method. At Hahnemann's times, neither clinical thermometers had been invented nor had knowledge of bacteria been acquired, instead there were weird explanations (e.g. miasma theories of pathogenic vapours emanating from the soil), so Hahnemann's model must be seen as quite sensible from a historical point of view. From today's view, after more than two centuries of an enormous gain in knowledge, one can assume that even Hahnemann, given today's knowledge, felt inclined to ridicule his apologists. Thus homoeopathy was fiercely criticized already more than 100 years ago (see links). The law of similars does not go back to Hahnemann; analogical concepts already existed prior to Hahnemann (e.g. in England).

 

Furthermore it is remarkable that some of Hahnemanns recommendations from the Organon, such as the application of a hot terpentine to scald injuries, are not propagated broadly anymore. With injuries at which one can immediately see the success or failure of a treatment the teachings are rejected partly correctly as obsolete and unfounded. The parts of Hahemanns teachings which are also illogical and unfounded, however, are commercialized profitably at whose putting into action one can hope for the placebo effect.

Furthermore it is remarkable that some of Hahnemanns recommendations from the Organon, such as the application of a hot terpentine to scald injuries, are not propagated broadly anymore. With injuries at which one can immediately see the success or failure of a treatment the teachings are rejected partly correctly as obsolete and unfounded. The parts of Hahemanns teachings which are also illogical and unfounded, however, are commercialized profitably at whose putting into action one can hope for the placebo effect.